>> hello, i am currently in afghanistan. i like to say hello to my family back in dover delaware and also to the people i work with out there. have a happy thanksgiving into nearly christmas. i will see you next year. >> i want to give everybody in jacksonville, fla., happy holidays. i will see you soon. be safe. >> today on c-span, the discussion on the future of limited government. and then children in africa. later, white house ceremonies for the kennedy center honoree, including home carney and oprah winfrey.

that is the kennedy saw center honors. -- kennedy center honors. and then on "washington journal" here are the guests that will be on the show which begins live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> q&a continues tonight and tomorrow with interviews from london. tonight, diane abbott on her plans for budget cuts and tomorrow, preparing for the british and american forms of government. a look at the impact of the money and racist. that is tonight and tomorrow night on c-span. >> tonight, center day o'connor

discusses experiences on the court. that is 9:00 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span. the future of limited government was discussed at a conference by new criterion magazine. there were a couple of editors that for interviewed. this is one hour in 40 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> take your seats. we only have a few hours to discuss a knotty problem. when it comes time for the questions and responses, please go to the microphone in the center of the room and say who you are and address your question or comment. i and the editor of the new criterion. i would like to welcome you to the conference on the wisdom of the founders and the idea of limited government. i am not sure whether there is a more pressing problem facing the public more than the limited government. -- like to thank a moment

take a moment to thank those that made this possible. the thomas w. smith foundation, without his generous support, we would not be able to put this conference together. they are a conspicuous friend of liberty. we are honored and grateful for their health. we are also grateful for a few others. these are economic perilous times and we are fortunate to have some committed who collaborators in our efforts. some will find interesting literature about the new criterion in your conference folders. let us read this when you have

an unoccupied moment. and my colleague is here with their efforts. she organized this affair. thanks. the wisdom of the founders, what is that? i believe ronald reagan articulated a central part of it, when he said democracy is left governments than to keep government ltd. and unobtrusive. keep politics and government secondary to the important things of life. whether what reagan says is true

of democracy itself is something that we may want to question. too often, democracy has been praising those that encourage rather than retard the growth of government. that would be part of what the founders had to ponder as they go through history for a new model for america. democracy rightly understood. it has been constrained and redefined by the founders. let me begin by acknowledging that we will talk a good deal of the ideal of limited government. the founders were deeply concerned to protect individual and state rights from the government.

the powers delegated by the constitution were few and defined dealing with mostly external objects like war, peace, and foreign commerce. we have forgotten one prescription. still it is worth acknowledging that the founders were deeply concerned with limited fear of government power and were also concerned with strong and efficient federal government.

they said it had too much coverage to a central authority at the expense of a state. they created and maintained a more perfect union of which the constitution speaks. alexander hamilton road that it is essential to the security of liberty. the goal was a have remains, the security of private rights. i promise not to say another word in this favor. for our problem today is not to ensure the energy of government of the opposite. to address the balance and

reestablish that happy medium by looking at the jurisdiction of private rights against a bureaucratic leviathan. a couple of lines kept recurring to me. one came towards the end of october 2008 win and the presidential candidate barack obama address supporters and said there were only a few days away from a fundamentally transforming the united states of america. what could that mean? at the moment he spoke, the united states was the mightiest, richest, most secure republic in the history of the world. if someone expected a fundamental transformation,

which would he change? people say a lot of things on the campaign trail that they really do not mean. one question would be, how serious was barack obama when he talked about fundamentally transforming the country? i believe the last few years shows that he was very earnest. some call his statement as shot and of. his economic vibrancy and hospitable as has been changed towards business and entrepreneurship. his commitment to limited government and individual freedom. the blessings of liberty. how astonishing that the state should propose pioneers if we do

not choose to require a health insurance deemed suitable by the state. how amazing it the state should tell banks how much they should pay their employees or use taxpayers' money to reward people from buying certain brands of automobiles produced by companies in which they are part owner and have a stake. just friday, the president told "60 minutes" that the election was not -- was a comment on the field communication of his administration. i think it was a referendum on the administration's policy and the effort to transform the united states of america. and there were assumptions

about what to the individual and the state should be. what effect that would have been on washington and the coming months is another question. we will only know that in the fullness of time. republicans would put politics aside. they cannot afford to have a gridlock in the next few years. they have to move forward. after what has happened, i would like to put in a good word for gridlock. unless appropriate name for prudence. slow government. rahm emanuel made headlines when he declared in the midst of the recent economic meltdown to not

let serious prices go to waste. he said a crisis makes people anxious and vulnerable. it is easier to exploit that vulnerabilities and pushed through initiatives to a large government. that is why one should exercise -- diligence. as a british politician recently observed, most disastrous policies have been introduced at times of emergency. consider the actions of new deal democrats under fdr. many acknowledge their sudden expansion of the government and proliferation hebert business, prolonged the depression. fdr and his minions said that in

a time of crisis, the government's response must be proportionate to the public's anxiety. they should temper that in siding with passionate judgment. how often have you heard of politicians for a government bureaucrat say doing nothing is not an option? in fact, doing nothing is always an option. sometimes it is the best option. perhaps calvin coolidge and knowledge of this. do not just do something, stand there. the point is it is far easier to establish than to read themselves of any bureaucracy. the hardest to kill as government bureaucracy. when the economic crisis broke,

the united states was spending more, borrow more and have paralyzed the new regulations. in the past year and a half, obama has expanded the size and intrusiveness of the federal government. they have spent trillions of dollars under the rubric of health care reform put another 20% of the american economy under the control of washington. i think to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers lotus with perpetual death. we must make every election between economy and liberty. the fed is embracing another $600 billion worth. where will it end? let me return to president obama's comment that we put

politics aside. i know this can be political hypocrisy. i think there was something more or other thin hypocrisy. i think president obama was sincere. like many friends of humanity, and he believes that it is one of the proponents, those in an unguarded moments where he had referred to his enemies in beijing, but he has left politics rather than benevolence. his goals transcend politics. they occupy a realm of virtue that is not subject to selfish imperatives. president obama has said the chief issue is not raising revenue fairness.

he told joe the plumber to spread the wealth around. at some point, obama said i think you have made enough money. if you are uncertain about what that meant, the irs will explain it to you. benevolence may seem odd, this is a type of benevolent rumor -- a ruler. benevolence is a curious action. it left a virtue than any motion. to be benevolent means what? to increase the happiness of others.

the radical benevolence is compatible with other in difference in even cruelty. you feel kindly toward others. that is what matters, you're feeling. everywhere that call marks had ideas, there was intention to forge a more equitable society by abolishing private property and doffed the phrase of spreading the wealth around. spread it wide and a fan. the nine most terrifying words in the english language are i am from the government and i am here to help.

benevolence is not a bad thing in itself. it is like charity. it is like telescopic philanthropy. the philanthropic deal is more distant and abstract and obvious. when it comes to his own family, he is remiss. the chief effect are to institutionalize the state while assuring a steady growth of the bureaucracy charged with managing -- both help to explain why it is so difficult to dismantle. it does not matter that the welfare state creates policy. the intention behind it is

benevolent. that is one of the reasons why it is so seductive. it is a hero when of the enlightened. it is intoxicating, expensive, and ruinous. the intoxicating effect helps to explain the growing appeal of politically correct attitudes about the environment. you cannot go anywhere without seeing something being advertised as green. the more abstract, the better. the stated policy has the sanction of benevolence. they are against war, depression, or the environment. why not? where else are the pleasures

that have the so cheaply? it also explains why an anger and benevolence is a concern. the imperatives are intrinsically opposed to the practices that are underlined. the parts want to reserve a space for private initiative. that can be inevitable. some individuals succeed better than others. to encourage innovation in hard work by crowning it with success. in 1800, thomas jefferson said lies and frugal government would restrain them from injuring one another but would leave them otherwise from -- shall not take from the mouth of labor worse, the bread that was burned.

other restrictions would be imposed, sacrificing the right of freedom to the demand of the quality. henry kissinger and noted certain things about this. dictatorship is a rain created and supported by benevolence. obama talked about fundamentally transforming america.

another is an observation used as an epigraph. it is seldom that liberty of any kind was lost all at once. american troops away from the idea of government and has been gathering force for decades. as one fares, so fares the others. it is also something that we visit upon ourselves. one of the main points of this argument concerns the psychological change, the extensive government control. it involves a process of

innovation. in exchange for the challenges and liberty and freedom and self-reliance. it becomes more and more difficult. difficult but not impossible. i like to think that last tuesday's election was an illustration of the james madison and conservation. in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people by the election of more faithful representatives. i hope we can tell more about the annulment of james madison. [applause]

>> thanks, roger. we have ground to cover. i would give you an opening show about princeton but i will dispense it. i want to discuss subjects. the political science of the founders. what is most impressive about the political science of the founders. the limited government and its connection to the constitution and what is limited government. someone may think that i should speak about the values of the founders. i will speak about the political science of the founders. it is part of the identity.

my value versus your value. they have no foundation. it could be otherwise. they are just opinions. political science, it is solid. it has a foundation in a human nature that is permanent and fix. political science is capable of progress. you can make innovation. political science today is based on values. it is historical. it is not timeless. it speaks of the living constitution. limited government was acceptable in the 18th century,

but not today. the government in constitution develops and grows. there is no end to it. what kind of growth is its? it is like the science of evolution. living constitution came from the progressives. they believe in progress. there is no way to define it. progress towards what? there must be some fixed end if there is to be progress or growth or development? if not, the living constitution is a meandering constitution. the founders of political science announces progress in

the understanding of republics. republicans is a popular government based on the consent of the people. it is a solid basis. to speak of the founders values is to accept the thinking of today. the progressives that believe in living constitution. what is most impressive about political science? introspection. america is a republic. there is a republican genius in american people. they rejected monarchies in the american revolution. they do not need to establish the republic as opposed to the

enemies of a republic. that is not a problem. opponents of the constitution who are also republicans. one person thought under it we would become an aristocracy. too much concentrated power. the anti-federalists were not for about this within. to them, the danger comes from outside. from other forms of government. the federalists come from within. republics have weaknesses. there is a disastrous history in the past.

no successful republic. the roman republic transformed itself into an empire. they lived through a recent experience in the american revolution. the contemporary scene for them. the founders took every principle of a set of modern psychology. if it says, you never know what you do. the most important faculty is your conscious. -- unconscious. you can stumble into happiness. some say be aware of your weaknesses.

you can have much more thought and it is much more dangerous than the weaknesses of your enemies. what are the weaknesses of republics? in the past, they have a destructive monarchies that they refuse to put a single or energetic executive in their constitutions. the government must work and have energy. power usually means potential. energy means something active. the second weakness was the and fatter quit notion of representation.

the use people to make little decisions directly. if they have representation, they looked for a representative who like their constituents as opposed to representatives who were more enlightened. they thought a federal organization was like a league of independent states like the united nations. never considered a couple of layers of government. they had no true understanding of responsibility. they thought it meant responsiveness to the people, not taking initiative or charge of the situation.

unable to act decisively in foreign affairs. there would argue without conclusion. there is no recognition of the property of majority fashion. they say it is the work of a minority. this is not the true danger in republics. it does so under the cover of the republican form. that is majority rules.

today's political sciences unable to recognize this fashion. the definition of a sanction is something excludable. therefore, it does not exist. in politics, there is no possibility of certainty. founders were aware of this. the solution to majority faction is to have a large republic. there is the phrase, extending the sphere. there needs to be repercussions within the government. it is not enough to make the government accountable to the people. we must also require it to check itself. there is a new definition of separate powers.

they must be dependent of each other. independence met they have to defend themselves on their own. to achieve this is necessary to mix the breed of powers together. there is a mixture of legislative power. this was another witness that it did not do this. the anti federalists were the american version of anti- republicans. they were against consolidated government. complex and consolidated. the founders wanted different

things. you must not go for one at the expense of another. both can be secured in the constitution. what is the constitution? a limited government and a way of life. in this view, the constitution is above ordinary government to limit ordinary government. the constitution is a fundamental law about ordinary law which is made under the constitution. it is made by the people.

you can change constitutional law by reference of the people. ordinary law is changed by ordinary legislature. the people on top make the constitution. second comes the constitution. not by a natural law but by constituting. our government owes a lot to john locke. constitution is a verbal noun. third, you have the people that

of bay and left the legislature. you have the people at the top and at the bottom. that is the magic of constitutional government. sovereignty of the people but the people cannot will. certain government our constitutional and others are not. the 1936 soviet constitution is an example. we see through such disguises. on the other hand, in this case, the people are divided. constitutional government is not the whole.

it is not the choice of how they want to live. this is the public way of life. it is not just say limited government. the limit is part of a republican way of life. it speaks of veneration. he thought it was a good thing. it should not be recklessly disturbed. the constitution was a choice in the past. it is conceivable that americans could abandon their constitution.

the constitutional way of life had a different meaning. the biological meaning of constitution for instance, you could have a strong or weak constitution. every country would have a constitution. just as the individual has a constitution. i think the u.s. constitution is one in both senses. it has made service -- certain things how to make popular government safe and energetic. a separation of power, an elected senate. at first, the senate was elected indirectly.

it is not an aristocratic branch in either case. the constitution in the other sense includes details of our way of life. the fact that we have a strong executive in our constitution has legitimized the abundance of one-man rule in our private lives. privateceo's in our life everywhere. every organization has this. this is a main consequence a favor of a single, energetic executive. you focus responsibilities. better to do this then have a commission which disburses

possibilities. also they were brought in as part of the constitution. the bill of rights. he was the one who led to the adoption of this. he brought them in. the anti-federalists are part of the american tradition that we see today. above all, the phrase of american exceptional was some. what does that mean? it means that america is exceptional.

why? it is an idea to have a republic. republican governments make the republican idea work. this is an experiment for mankind. an experiment carried on for the sake of mankind in which america leads the way. you can do it to, we would say to other countries. we are not imperialists. the success of america is the success of liberal democracies. it protected liberties and shows

that liberties is something viable. this is the greatness of america. we are the can-do country. sometimes they may be impatient as in the 2006 election, but it is the feature of our greatness. it appeals to the desire of greatness. separation of powers is based on let ambition counteract ambition. it is not good to have too much harmony. it is better to risks gridlock.

limitations in the constitution these self interest. the truth pursues its interests or opinion. it does not think of the common good. you do not have to surrender to the community. it also has ambition misled by people of ambition. america has ambitions as opposed to europe's today, especially germany. some think it has nothing to do in the world. france has only the memory of

ambition. america is looking for the honor of mankind. why is that? undersell government, there is the human feeling of a victim of external forces and a kind of slave of nature or can he govern himself interest is not always in favor of self-government for liberty. you forget your honor in govern yourself. self-government means political liberty. this is the fundamental liberty according to our founders. not cultural or economic liberty. um an honorable determination to

will yourself and do it in such a way that it works. what is the sense of limited government? the public must be able to do what is necessary. meet economic crises. this was of a necessity and is open to expansion. that was a phrase in the constitution of necessary and proper clause. it comes out at the end of the list. there were writings regarding necessary and proper clause.

necessity in is not attracted to crawford. when something is necessary, it may not be proper. it is necessary and proper in our constitution. each contains the other. a tobacco republican might say this is republican morality. that is what it is necessary to do. it would minimize or ignore necessity. it can lead to hypocrisy and pretend to be more. you pretended to be moral of front, but behind your back, you

are doing something sneaky. the president says, do not be squeamish. use the power of the executive. he could become a victim of wishful thinking. necessary means necessary to the republic. it does not mean necessary to an individual in their own lives. it also includes a necessity for good government. it means it is republican in the successful. it is not perfect government. government itself as a reflection on human nature. human nature is the same.

there will be no perpetual peace. we probe a few years ahead. there is no spontaneous order that will enable us to take care of ourselves or our government. it means the necessary exception to the will of law. it is the attitude with energy. limited government is not necessarily small government. small government is not necessarily one government. it is not small or big either. big government takes away yourself government.

usurp your liberty. it has benevolence and good will. it can still up on you. it is benevolence. self-government as opposed to the other. human nature is fixed. it is a necessity of our human nature. it can be for the good or bad. when it is for bad, it is called encroachment. the constitution is not fixed. it is open to interpretation.

it is short of changing the constitution. the constitution is not to be changed except by the people. republican government is not fixed. part of the dispute in making this choice is inevitable. part of the dispute is the unnecessary consequence of choices and liberty. there will always be liberals and conservatives. the constitution is not a guarantee of good government. not a machine that runs itself. his is free to make mistakes. but they could put an end to our freedom. thank you. [applause]

>> good morning. this week, this month, many are wondering. the free market people may have done well in the mid-term election, but instantaneously, we get a second thought and winning is easy. candy's new rivals stuff a progressive side to be

successful by their own terms? they have to make a law that build a wall to protect the economy and let it grow. eight the progress of tide is strong. this legislation is really necessary. persistence is necessary. professionalism is necessary. master politicians are necessary as lawless change them or write them. i wanted to talk a little bit this morning about politicians that did start the progressive side. it was the 30th president,

calvin coolidge. he is the subject of a new biography i am writing. simon cowell. coolidge achieved what many long to do. i am grateful to our hosts endeavor sponsors and dollar c- span audience for this time to talk in detail about the challenge, his achievement, in his message. if coolidge were standing here, he would stop right now and that could be the end of his speech. coolidge has a pretty low rank. he is there with jimmy carter.

from history, he was elected on the coolidge ticket. he almost became president by accident when harding died in the middle of the republicans can go. coolidge did not talk a lot. who you probably heard stories about coolidge. there was another kind of republican. he looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle. one person said she made a bet that she could get him to say more than a few words. the response was, you lose. he was distained as insignificant and even hated

with venomous write-in. most new president get a honey month. not coolidge. they wanted to welcome him into office and now he thinks [unintelligible] we wanted to compare the challenge there is a summer rainstorm.

remember when we had president wilson, the high living constitution? we had a progressive movement. that is when the income tax became law. they got it up to 77. we got the fed. there was some form of national hair care. -- health care. many americans wondered if their country was going into a revolution. there was inflation, unemployment. if they demonstrated in berlin,

what would not de demonstrate in boston, seattle? somehow it was stopped in the 1920's when coolidge was president. not much progress of a law passed. it did put progressivism on hold. the results were fabulous. the economy grew. you look at a nominal number and it is better. that is often deflation. unemployment was high for a moment. it dropped a really fast.

that is below several years in the recession. real wages grew. people got cars. the rich got richer, but also by the ins has a played a greater share of the tax. they got to the fairness that president obama described by cutting the tax rate. in our modern view, this can be confusing. things do not go together. some say you have to pick your poison. .

i call him the great row freezing rain refrainer for he is great for not just what he did but also coolidge for what he chose not to do. i want to give an important footnote that he wasn't alone in trying to limit uncertainty and change. actually, that scandalman deserves some cret here, the man who has lower rank than coolidge. if you go to his 1921 inaugural

address he focuses specifically on what a government should do during a recession. sounds so different from anything we might hear that i want to ahead it to you. perhaps we never shall know the old levels of wages again because war inevitably readjusts compensations and the necessities of life will show their inseparable relationships. but we must strive for normlesy to reach stability. we must face a condition of grim reality, charge off our losses, start afresh. no altered system will work a miracle. any wild experiment will only add to confusion. our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system. hard to imagine a politician saying that toyed. -- today. >> coolidge was part of the team, a leader on the team that fought for and won lower taxes. and here you do have to include wilson.

they started at that 77% rate. world war one is over. goes down to the 50s. and then with coolidge all the way down 25%. that's better than ronald reagan. coolidge was the president who hit that home run. why did he do it? how did he do it? his father was a tax collector. i was reading his father's papers looking where he wrote down how much he collected in this little town from each farmer. they had a snow tax, vermont. his father was a tax collector for decades, 1880s, 1809, all the way through. i think coolidge had a good understanding of the sacrifice that taxation meant. at one point he called it legalized larceny. and, therefore, he had the impetus to push his tax cuts through with andrew melon, the treasury secretary, melon

wasn't big on words either. it was said the two gentlemen conversed in pauses. pauses. they conversed in pauses someone said. third, coolidge halted the wild advanced of organized labor while he was still governor of massachusetts. this is why he got on the ticket for vice president. there was a police strike. police struck against the city and the state. walked off the job. and the police had a pretty good case. they were underpaid. they were poor. they had to share their bunchings in the station house. the station house had bed bugs, it had rats. it had so much vermin that the vermin chewed on the leather of the hell meths. they made friends with a nice union man. they weren't wild and crazy. but when they went on strike, there was rioting in boston and

people expected the governor and the mayor and police commissioner to negotiate. they didn't. they fired the policemen. it was a prepat co. why? not because they were crume. coolidge did it or saw that it was done because he wanted to draw that line in the sand about organized labor and how far progressives can go. and specifically about what public sector unions can and cannot do. and he uttered a line. there is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time. and that resonated and people said, well, the progressive tide isn't going to get any farther. he stopped it. and that did help him get elected vice president in 20 and president in 24. americans liked workers but there's a limit to what we like about organized union power.

coolidge and harding practiced thrift. the federal budget was in the 6s. that is 6 billion. we have trillions, they have billions. they brought the budget from the 6s down to 5.1 billion to 3.3 billion to 3.1 billion to at one point in the 1920s 2.9 billion. they more than haveed their budget. they more than haved the federal budget. coolidge used to speak about economy but he didn't mean measuring aggats by the economy or a bunch of aggats. he meant savings by government. he said we need economy. he came into office in 23 and left in 29. an when he left in 1929, calvin coolidge's budget was lower than when he came in. this alone i think deserves, gives -- rehabbed him. fifth, coolidge kept government

out of the rest of the economy. the chief business of america is business. you've heard that coolidge, quote, the utilities industry were the kind of internet of the day, the most promising industry. naturally that industry was coveted by government. there was a large effort to capture utilities and specifically to involve government in the development and production of electricity of expansion of a government dam into a system. the wilson dam at muscle sholes, the future tba. coolidge vetoed it and therefore post ponde its socialization. there were other useful vetos. veterans bonus. he rejeblingtted farm subsidy. that's particularly notable because coolidge was the son of a country man. he was from vermont. he understood farmers. so how did he do it? some unexpected ways. one was by not being grandiose, by not minding bling called dull. republicans, demonstrators

today, none of them today, nobody, tea party, right or left wants to be called dull. coolidge's ability was to embrace dull and to turn dull into great. this is thanks to walter litman. he got the president's mode duss op randi down so well. here is what he said about calvin coolidge. the white house is compleemly sensitive to the first symptoms of any desire on the part of congress or of the scuteive departments to do something. the skill with which mr. kill coolidge applies a wet blanket is technically marvelous. there has never been his equal in the art of deflating interest. the statesman madgeance it is desireable to interest the people in government. that is useful to the politician. mr. coolidge is more sophisticated. he has discovered the value of diverting attention from the government and with an exquisite sultty that amounts

to genius. second, coolidge did what he did by refusing to be thrown into action by emergency, quote/unquote. that is, he is the anti-rahm emanuel whom roger described. the pop quiz of coolidge's convictions and integrity in this regard came with the katrina of their era, which was the 1927 flood of the mississippi that was a dramatic flood, walls of water come down, more than 20 feet high, hundreds of thousands of people displaced. he confronted this same question that president bush would later confront. the choice to react as a military leader would. or to pause and respect federalism. cool yinl did the latter. he sent an emsarey to be sure. his commerce secretary herbert hoover. but he didn't see it as the role of washington to run it

all, to take and specifically not to fund it. private philanthropy should take the lead. the government's job was in the background, to help the red cross organize its work, to say it approved of the red cross work so the red cross could raise funds. a third feature of coolidge that enabled him to achieve was that he practiced politics well. he was a career politician. the kind we're trying to vote out these days. he had progressed from muneniss pap government in north hampton, mass, to the massachusetts state legislature, to lieutenant governor in boston, vice president, and then president years and years, decades. he knew to get your goal it took skill, whether it was a pocket veto or behind the scenes work he did his work carefully. he picked his battles. he did not have a steep

learning curve or learn on the job because he took the years before he got to the presidency to learn his craft. so he's that rare animal, a politician who is a master and uses his mastry to make government smaller. final feature of the coolidge method that must be mentioned and it goes with dr. mansfeeleds' remarks. it's his uemilt. first humility toward his office. he not only had the ability to delegate, he bleed he ought to out of respect for the structure of the executive branch. when the time came to run for a second elected term, kind of an entitlement in modern politics of a successful president, that 28 contest, coolidge declined with an admonition that could have been written by lord acten. he said, it is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. they are always surrounded by worshippers. they are constantly assured of

their own greatness. the chances of having wise and faithful public service are increased by a change in the presidential office after a moderate length of time. coolidge also practiced humilityty towards other men. he respected property in the contract, its role in commerce. he knew an economy wasn't just aggats but about deals between man and man or man and woman. he cared much about that man bilateral, two-on-two part about mutual respect which is why his civility is a big topic for us. the nation magazine might attack him but it is hard to find in his work an attack on anyone. this made him popular and they noticed that in 1924. coolidge believed there were some areas where the spiritual or god had authority that ought not be assailed. teachers and documentaries often repeat that coolidge, quote. i may have mentioned the chief

business of america is business. but they're giving an incomplete report because coolidge didn't just say the chief business of america is business. he said the ideal of america is idealism, too. he repeatedly made clear there were realms where government could not go. this was captured in remarks he made at the naming of the statue, 1924. coolidge said, the government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. there is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law for the virtue of man. you have to have both. and here we go straight back to the founders who are our subjects. and that takes us to the final question. if coolidge and the 1920s were a success, and the 1920s did roar like a real lion, how did history manage to drown it all out? drown out that roar so well? one reason is the great depression that followed. and here is the schoolbook

logic. if the great depression was exceptionally great, deep, wide, and tragic, great enough to be a decade, and it was, then the era that caused the great depression had to be commensurately great and covering a commensurate amount of time. sort of parallel binary thinking. if the 30s were the bad, the consequences of something, the 20's had to be that cause. i don't see that when i look at the data. so the 1920s are condemned as unreal, gads byish. they're trivialized as a foot note. the presidents must be trivialized as well. you can't have it both ways. but that's binary thinking. and as much as we love to talk about presidents, we're more subtle than that. also, and i think that jim pearson is going to talk about this today, we can't remember what they achieved and

particularly what coolidge achieved because we speak a different economic language. we speak keynesianism or monitorism or something like that today. and keynesianism lacks the vocabulary do describe wheaps in the 20s. a recession where they cut the budget? and where they increased the discount rate? and it didn't halt recovery? impossible. right? can't happen. a decade that disproves the phillips curve? well, lets not talk about that. a time when unions got smaller, organized unions, and yet real wages rose and strongly? but maybe safer not to discuss. a period when there was so much emfasiss on supply and so little on demand, must have been fake. because of all these inconvenient truths, our histories, our social science overlooks the strength of the 20s.

that doesn't mean it didn't happen and politicians can't provide a model. they did roll back government. in the u.s., as i mentioned, we rate our politicians as sports stars and cool yinl did have many faults. he signed a nasty immigration laws. he imposed tariffs because it was in the platform of his party. tariffs hurt economies. still, i hope you'll agree that the facts just supplied suggest coolidge warrants an upgrade, that he belongs on the all-star team. thank you. >> to comment on these two papers. i vpt thought as deeply about the federalist, i don't know as much about calvin coolidge so i'm in an unenviable position.

plus, i think i'm all that stands between you and the break, and an excellent next panel. jim pearson, and maybe the best thing i can do is building on those two talks to lean against a little bit. i agree with the talks and i agree with the sentiment and with rogers' talk as well and the sentiment that anmates this meeting but maybe the best thing i can do is lean against it rather than simply reinforce what we most people in this room are probably inclined to believe. so i will make two points. the first point really follows i'd say from the talk but maybe it's -- i'll put it in a simpler way. the wisdom of the founders cannot be reduced to limited government. and it's a mistake to reduce it in that way. and it's a mistake to simply read the founders as -- it's poncht to take those parts that are most important to take, to lean against current trends. so i don't quarrel in any way

with an emphasis on limited government in an era and moment when the government is ballooning and expanding and one of the most worrisome things about it is the sense of inlimittability of the government and the sense of the , sort of there's never enough in terms of the welfare state. so i'm very much on board limiting government agenda and on board the tea party agenda insofar as that's a part of it. on the other hand, really people should read the federalist papers. and they're complicated, they're the sense of limited government, also very strong defense of self-government, popular government which sometimes cuts against limited government to some of our libertarian constitutional law friends will argue. there's nothing to be feared from pop already movements or from competent legislatures. and there's a tension between the courts upholding limited government sometimes and a strong populous impulse that

rises up to legislate in the right way. and i think it's a healthy tension and i'm probably more on the self-government side of this. but it's a tension the federalist discusses and recognizes and claims that the constitution resolves as well as it can be resolved. one of the striking things, helping pretending to help harvey mansfield teach this term. at harvard one of the striking things reading this, i read a few times and wrote my thesis, coming back to it again one of the striking things again is just how hard he hadded the authors are about the tensions that are indemic to good republican government, that a lot of politics is about balancing not irreconcilable tendencies but tendencies that go in different direction that is cut against one another. the federalist is not subtle or shy about this. the tendency, the need for energy in government cuts against many of the ashutes of

government. the need for stability and security, but especially the need for stability cuts against aspects of a government. we have a complicated system of government, the federalist system, separation of powers, republican system that's not simply democratic, that tries to take account of these aspects. and part of the defense is that there's no perfect way to do this. that the constitution, the founders had all kind of problems and conversations to deal with. they weren't beginning with a blank slate for one thing and they tried to work these out as well as they can. that some of the rules, very clear in federalist 51. some of the rules might point to a certain direction but upon certain conversation deviation from certain rules or principles are necessary or required because of some peculiarities of the different strengths of the branches of government, the character of the united states, the character of a large republic. so the complexity of the

founders i think, of the wisdom of the founders, is worth stressing. i don't by any means wish to say it's so complex we can't appeal to it or i very much dislike these op eds in the "new york times" by suedo distinguished historians chastising the tea party, and don't they know that the founders differed among themselves and that hamilton wasn't the same as jefferson. there's a certain amount of that even among conservatives. i deeply don't want to associate myself with that. having said that, i do think the truth is, and i think the tea party activists uns this, the words of some of the founders is somewhat complicated. an the founders wanted energyic government. they wanted limited and jrgic

government. in the 50s and 60s rediscovering the founders. and that's an amazing story too. few acdemics were able to cut against the currents of the times. and were able to do what at the time seemed a very hopeless effort to say maybe the founders knew more than woodrow wilson or her better croley and others. to the extent that that has borne fruit over the generations is very impressive. but mart b wrote an essay called limited and energetic government. you need them both. you need to be energetic on the thing that is government has to do. one of the problems with blote government is that it's not energetic. and you get the worst of all worlds. a sprawling eanywhere vating welfare state, a nanny state

that can't do what government should do and tries to do everything and is sort of incompetent and meddling but not decisive way on those things for which government should be decisive. this is an obvious point. and a big perhaps correction but i would say there's a little bit too much sometimes of a sense that -- well, one has to be careful to preserve the full wisdom of the founders in light of current events. the founders were very practical. they're dealing with the world as it is. and they would have slightly different recommendations probably about certain things than they had in 1787. not on fundamentals but on the application of them. and it's not unreasonable to say that as a matter of legislative policy that we do live in a different world and nation, and one can't --

mechanical solution from the founders. so that's one point. another point really prompted more by amty's talk. and here i'll lean a little more against the thrust of her talk than i did harvey's, is i think the other fear we do need to -- not the other fear. the other temptation we need to resist is a certain amount of nostalgia for the past. a certain amount of the sense that everything was great until it all went off the rails in a certain year. i don't know, 1912 or 1932 or 1968 or whatever one's favorite is progressivism being at the center these days. i guess 1912 is the favored year or 19 o 1 when roosevelt takes over or 19 86 even. but one does have to be a little hard-headed about what the alternatives were at the time and what the alternatives are always going to be. it's not as if one has

perfection. we're the years 1865 to 1895 particularly wonderful years in american political history? i would argue not. i'm not expert but the abandonment of blacks in the south was not a high watermark, i would say, in american history. and that was one of the key decisions made in those years and i think a status of blacks in the south regressed in those last 20 years before progressivism. and i think that has something to do with the sense that simple conserveism wasn't a solution to the problems of the day. politics in the 1880s and 90s is royaled by devicive debates by money. popular uprisings. it's not as if it is a wonderfully stable free market where everyone was just on board the kind of free market vision of things in those days,

and the progressives to be fair thought this was unsustainable. that there was a great danger that things would go worse in a crazy direction. william jenings did get votes for the president. there wasn't a great consensus before progressivism grew up. and they were in a sense to take these forces and problems to reshape them. there was a lot wrong, there was a lot of that theory behind it. there was a lot of bad practice and distasteful aspects, particularly under wilson. but one shouldn't overdo how wonderful things were politically or economically. i seem to recall there was a bad recession that really was bad. i mean, threatening almost to the system, capital system in the u.s. before the progressives were in charge of much. i utterly defer to amty on the 20s and on coolidge and is

really impressive. coolidge is also something that historians and political science did about 20, 25-year-olds ago and i'm looking forward to the book build ong their work and i think it's very important for acdem yibblings and the rest of us to lean against to challenge not just lean against but to radically challenge the kind of deep reform of political correctness that has gone to something like the judgment of someone like coolidge where everyone assumes he was second rate and not very thoughtful. it's really amazing to go back and read his speeches and look at some of the justifications of the policies and look at what he did as treasury secretary. i'm very much a supporter in the rethinking of american history that is now pretty well under way, i would say and is due to a lot of impressive dissidents, some coming out of different schools of political philosophy and science and history who have been willing to challenge the orthodox

consensus over the last 20, 30, 40 years. on the other hand, just to feel a little bit of a skunk at the garden party here. he was very impressive, harding and hoover less so. coolic was wrong tot to run again for presidency. but he gave the presidency over to a man who was a zast are you president. herbert hoover. and if you don't like the new deal, you shouldn't like herbert hoover. he made it inevitable that roosevelt would get in and do some of the things that he did. we did have a disaster rust policies most people now agree under herbert hoover. i take it some of these governors were appointed before hoover. i take it it was built on a tradition of somewhat endorsed the high tariffs as being hopeful of economic prosperity. i believe it was under coolidge

that his secretary of state signed the kell log-brianne treaty which permanently outlawed war. probably played some part therefore in which -- played some part in the kind of unhealthy sense that governed america in the first part of the 30s that allowed us or made it even more likely we wouldn't have intervened or even encouraged others to intervene when it might have made a difference in europe. it's a slill argument to blame everything on coolidge. but if everything was so great you would think there would be a little more barrier to the bad policies that brought about the great depression and terrible events worldwide in the 30s. so i'm a little bit, i would just worn a little bit about excessive nostalgia for a particular moment, whether it's pre-progressive america, whether that would quite be

1912 do we really confident that taft was the right choice in that election and that he necessarily would have had much better policies for the next eight-year-olds? maybe he would have. i don't know. i haven't looked closely at it. or, as i say, coolidge or hoover in the 20s or even into more modern times. obviously 1932 to 1952 were not terrible years, really, for the united states of america. the dominance that roosevelt and the new deal, i think we came out of that period somewhat better off than we went into it and did a fair amount of good for the world in those years. so i'm a little more skeptical about -- i am for the critique of progressivism. i mean, in an intellectual and historical matter. in truth it needs to be fought but i think one has to be a little discriminating in what one endorses against it. and as distinguishing parts,

there were healthy and unhealthy parts of it. somehow the idea of progress isn't a ridiculous idea. the idea of progressivism maybe. finally, i would say that i think the good news though, having just leaned against excessive ven ration for the wisdom of the founders, limited government and capessnive nostalgia for particular unprogressive or anti-progressive characters in american political history, i would also say that i think this is a very big moment. i'm more optimistic than a lot of my friends. the election that happened on tuesday a week ago was a big deal. it was the biggest switch of house seats since 1938. it was the biggest switch of house seats in the first election in the mid-term election of a president's

election ever. so strictly anlitcal matter, no first-term elected president has ever had the repudiation that president obama and the democratic party had last tuesday. and that was an issues-based and policy-based repupeation. and that's evident when you look at the vote. it's a parliamentry style election in the sense that president obama, it's about obama and the national agenda. it wasn't much about local issues and most of the federal races obviously a good candidate can save himself. a bad republican candidate could doom him or herself. but the votes, correlates amazingly closely to obama's approval rates. the states where the democrats held on are states for whatever reason president obama has decent approval ratings. the states, washington where he's got decent numbers, the states where his numbers have

plummetted. 2 to or below his national average, especially in the midwest. they lost 20 plus state legislature chambers. it was a very big verdict and opportunity. i mean, i think those snooping around a bit have been through a couple of big elections. but i think this is potentially the biggest. to go the reversal from 2008 to 2008-10, the depth of the verdict down to the state legislative level. the fact there was issue and policy based. there's no katrina, no war in iraq being bungled which led to 2006 and which were perhaps atlanta verdicts on the bush administration but were not about the underlying policies or the size of government. this was a very issue-based repudiation. so -- and the character of the opposition was very ideas-based. the tea party movement is a very amazing thing.

there's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. generally grazz-roots movement bottom up and generally interested in ideas about how to relimit government and reorganized our political system and find new policies that would be more condeucive to liberty, self-government, and effective and energy jetic government. no one told them to have these ideas, they picked them up. of course one could find ideas that are maybe one disagrees with are a little wacky sometimes. but it's a very healthy and impressive thing. i mean, one worries about the country, i think one has to say that at least temporarily this is something that would reassure one about the state of the body politics. having said that, now the task obviously is for these ideas to be translated into reasonably successful and compelling policies, and the one election will have to be built on and that's a huge task of its own

challenges. but i think i would just end by saying it's pretty impressive what's happened over the last two years. and it suggests to me the lessons of the founders as well as the lessons of later presidents, including reagan, are deeper in the american political psyche than one might have expected. for all the attempts by the academics to extripate the memories of the founding fathers and any attachment to the notions of limited government or self-government or the fears of the nanny state and the pathologies of the welfare state, the american people are more attentive to that than all their betters and the academy and elsewhere and various precincts of new york, cambridge and the like. and it turns out there was a kind of, not just a healthy resistance but i would say a healthy willingness in to look for alternatives, to look for them seriously.

therefore, i would say that all the more important to really go back and think through the wisdom of the founders, think through the wisdom of someone like coolidge but do it in a clear-eyed way without too much of a gauzey view of history or too much nostalgia or wishful thinking. [applause] >> we're running a little behind but i figured we probably would. so we built in a little extra time for the program. first, i'd like to see whether professor mansfield or emily would like to respond to -- perhaps say something for a nonexcessive nosstadgea, speak up for that or something. and please speak into the microphone. >> can you hear me? well, i didn't say anything as i recall about the 19th

century. so i guess bill thinks that implicit in what i said is a nostalgia for the 19th century. but i would contest that. well, the second thing to say is that i think maybe that the hardest question about coolidge is this departure in 28. so we have to decide, i have to decide as a biographer and we all have to decide whether it was good or bad. whether a president choosing to depart is, and do we like -- do we care more about having good people than we care about stomping, i don't know, political encrustment and people staying in too long? and this is an issue of concern to me and will be in the biography. on balance i think he was right. i don't think he could have or would have stopped some of the

things that happened subsequent. that's because of his religious adherence to delegation. he thought the treasury should run things or the fed because that seemed to be what the laws said. he didn't intervene very much. he -- and so that there's a limit to that kind of government. nonetheless, had they followed coolidge-like policies, say it's hard to hype they size. but had they follow it had policies of the early 20s in the early 30s, that 20s recession i mentioned, i would argue we wouldn't have had a ten-year depression afterwards. we would have had a terrible sharp depression aggravated by international credit, gold standard, and, and, and, and probably worse than the one worse than the one in the early 20s but it would have been breefer, and therefore less remembered. 23409 great, not great, but a

depression. not ironed into our memory as the great depression is. >> i don't want to gang up on dear emty over here. but yet just to reiterate my point about ambition. i think one of the good things about the tea party is it did connect up to the republican party and did run candidates within the republican party. one of the problems with refraining or being modest or being prudent or careful is that it doesn't inspire people. and maybe even in coolidge, even in his own case he wasn't inspired by himself enough to run for another term. and ultimately you might wonder, it doesn't seem to reproduce itself either. you're not going to hear your

child speak up and say, i have the ambition to grow up and be a wet blanket. so i think this is a problem for conservatives generally, that they have ambition but they use it mostly in business and in culture and other things. and not so much in politics. there was a book a while ago written by a journalist called the united states of ambition pointing out the discrepancy between the two parties. liberals with their ambition go into government and conservatives are against government so they don't tend to go into it. but we need to go into it and be energetic in our going. >> before we take just a few questions from the audience, i would like to see if anyone else on the panel wants to intervene on this discussion.

no? so is there any questions would you please go to the microphone and stay who you are. the morning's discussion has been so utterly convincing that no one has any questions. ok. why don't we have a short break and reassemble here in, say, seven and a half minutes.

>> closing speech has an inevitable aspect of nostalgia. an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. but my dominant feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for fair well speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours all on line, all free. washington your way.

>> next, the use of children as soldiers and a film maker who has chronicaled the problem. this is an hour and a half. our panel is titled children of peace and war. from child soldiers to peace education. we're going to use a question and dialogue format that has been in use throughout the week , and it will begin with the panelists. however, i want to say it

includes all of us. and i also want to say that you are in for a treat this afternoon as you will hear from panelists. many of whom have worked with or have been child soldiers. so we're all in this together. and i want to remind us of the purpose and the opportunity of this unique and historic summit. it is a week-long event that will transform how we respond to, engage in, and recover from conflict. and might i submit there is a significant difference between violence and conflict. and many panelist thrussout the week have addressed this. it's our responsibility to learn to deal with conflict wisely and responsibly before it escalates to violence. and in the words of dr. shannon

french, the director of the center here at case western, at this peace and war summit, we will address the greatest challenge that faces humanity. the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. at the national peace academy, were defining peace taken right from the earth charter and simply put that means living in right relationship with self-, others, and the world around us. let me introduce the panelists. i will begin to my immediate right, your immediate left of me, with eric how long, who is a writer and director. and we just screened eric's film, short narrative, and

ana's play groupped. he has been involved in production for over 20 years, experienced every aspect of motion picture, joined the screen actors guild in 1992 as a stuntman and actor. and that experience propelled eric into stunt coordination and directing. his feature credits include north country, joe somebody, a simple plan, a serious man, and many others. eric has directed several award-winning short films and his latest film that we just screened ana's playground recently won the cleveland international film festival, has won top honors at 15 international film festivals, and four academy award qualifiers. it is all about how war impacts the humanity of our children. ter race is a renowned author for women's and children's

rights throughout africa. she is a pine near of african literature as her novel essential encounters is recognized as the first novel written by a female author from subis a harne africa. other mainlyor pubications include lay couple dominos, one of the first essays to analyze by racial couples published in 2006 in the northwest review. she also served as president of the union of african and mall gazeie women and advisor of african government on the status of women. the associate professor of french studies in the department of modern languages and literature and founding director of the ethnic studies program at case western reserve university. he received his doctorate at the university and has taught

at the university and state university of new york at albany. among his fiction and critical essays are the skull, beyond the littley's lake, and people theater, and grass roots empowerment in cam roon. and might i share that the story you will share is as -- is part of it. part of the story is as a child soldier. >> it follows you everywhere. >> kimmy weeks has worked to alleviate poverty and human suffering in africa and around the world since he was 14 years old. timmy was born in liberia in 1981 an when he was nine he came face to face with civil war, human suffering, and death. over the years, he has formed partnerships and led organization that is have provided education to thousands of students in west africa. he lobbied the disarmment of

over 2020,000 child soldiers and provided health care and recreation supplies to children. he will be sharing his story. but i want you to know that he investigated and released a ground-breaking report on the lie been government's involvement of the training of children as soldiers and as a result the former lie been president -- lie been president made attempts to assassinate him until he was granted political asylum in the united states. he established an international organization called youth action international supporting the needs of families liing in post-war countries. and in 2008, yai's program benefited close to 150,000 people in six post-war african countries. he is the recipient of the 2007 golden brick award honoring yuck people under 25 who are working to change the world. and in 2007, lie beerian

president presented him with its highest honor, decorating him night grand commander in the humane order of african redemption. he is the youngest recipient of this honor. a fun fact, his photo and buyo profiled on 20 million bags of cool ranch dorteos. i mean, i love that. we were interviewed together in vermont many years ago now for the international day of peace. assistant profess of peace studies. which he helped to establish in 2007. she a doctoral research candidate in international studies at the university of tokyo where his research focuses on from bullet to ball lot, the politics of peace making in napal.

a recipient of robert mack namarea fellowship from the world bank and many other fellowships. he is a founding executive director of the asian study center for peace and conflict transformation aspect. he is one of the founding members of the global alliance for ministries and departments of peace. and in 2005, he found it had napal peace initiative alliance which was instrumental in the establishment of the ministry of peace and reconstruction in napal in the new government. he is also cochair of the international peace research association. he has worked in south asia, afghanistan, napal, pakistan, and slilanchingea focusing on peace with unicef save the children. professor roger cram is an adjunct faculty member and director of special projects at high ram college in ohio.

he developed and teaches courses based on his years of research into the problem-solving abilities of world heroes of peace. three of rogers' courses at the college are children of the dump, diversity through debate, and human trafficking. they offer the heroes of peace remarkable conflict-resolution skills and methodologies for peaceful crisis management. in 2007, he took 14 college students to nick rag wa to work with the children living on the city dump and to south africa working with children with aids and has presented some of his findings at the rotary world peace summit he would in ontario in 2008 and has presented workshops to the department of defense and united states air force. he has also appeared in people magazine and on good morning america, cnn and the discovery channel. but he's not on any dorito bag.

correct. yet. so we would like to take a moment all of us the panelists and myself and invite you to listen with all of us as each of these panelists is about to share from the initial question that will be posed here but in fact they each have such unique and deep and moving and educational stories to share with us that i've invited them to tell their story to open the panel through the context of this question. what can we learn from this challenge we face regarding child soldiers about how we educate for peace? so how would you like to set the context as we begin

focusing through the lens of what can we learn from this challenge we face regarding child soldiers about how we educate for peace? and i invite all of you to listen and note as these esteemed panelists with deep stories share what are the gems that relate to peace education that are going to help us create a world that actually works for everyone? so we are all participating as you set context around what can we learn from this challenge we face regarding child soldiers about how we educate for peace? and i will ask who would like to start. and it will put pressure on the person to your right. professor graham. >> i'm sure everybody in this

room wants to help others. and help children and educate the world and promote peace. that's not the issue. the issue is how. and about 15 years ago at hyram college, i was faced with the same question as i'm teaching courses to students, how do we make a difference. don't just tell me about the problems in the world. tell me what can be done. well, i didn't know how. but i decided to study and start up a research project on people around the world that have proven they know how. magnificent people at their best. what were their thoughts? what resolutions did they use? what values did they employ in their decisions?

and i thought from here maybe i could get some help. some of the people we analyzed were obviously mandela, dezzmund tax cutu, gaundi, roosevelt, washington, dr. martin luther king, elbert switeser, i mean, the list goes on and on. we only researched heroes that had solved their problems peacefully. no military heroes that killed more enemy than the enemy killed them. but we did research peaceful military heroes. by the time we were through, we had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of solutions that these different people had performed for their -- to resolve their conflict. what we didn't expect is when we started putting them into groups. there are obblenel 14.

-- only 14. out of all the hundreds and probably thousands of ways to solve a problem peacefully, when magnificent people were at their best. now, nelson mandola had a bad day. we didn't research him them. we researched him at his best. and we were absolutely amazed at what we found and we tried to employ these values and issues and problems for the people around the college. they worked so magnificently we started studying children here oos. children heroes? let me give you an example. a little boy named ryan. he's seven years old. he's in kindergarten. his teacher comes to him and says, you know, there's people in africa 234 little villages

that don't have any water. we need to start to raise money maybe we can raise $70 by vacuuming rugs and washing dishes for your parents. well, ryan thought the well cost $70. and he went home and told his mother i need to raise money. identify got to raise money to raise $70 to put a water well in africa. and his mother, being very wise, allowed him to do this and he raked least and shoveled and washed dishes and vacuums rugs for seven or eight months. now he has $70. but now he's in the first grade. and he took the $70 back with his mother to his kindergarten teacher. and very proudly held it up and said, here's $70 now you can put the water well in and help those children in africa. and the teacher looked down at him and said, oh, ryan, water

wells cost thousands of dollars. and he looked up at the teacher and he looked at his mother and then he said, i just have to work harder. and he did. and he went to every first grade class in the entire school system and told the kids to go vacuum and rake leaves and wash dishes. and in two years, he had the thousands of dollars and he sent it over to africa. but he wanted to see his well that he had put in. now he's nine. he went to the newspapers and asked for help to raise enough money so he and his mother could go see the water well. and within a year, he had the money and the village in ghana heard he was coming and there's a little dirt road leading into

this town. and as they drove the truck into the town, for over one mile both sides of the road were lined with kids from that village clapping him as they came in. for the whole mile. now, this kid is nine years old. now he's 18. he's put in over 365 water wells in 54 different countries. now you know why i researched children and now you know what the values that they use were the same as all of the heroes and the values that he emphasized were the ones i found on perseverence. you never give up. most perceived failures in your life are not failures at all. they're successfully completed stepping stones toward a goal.

. .

>> a reporter came up to him and said "thomas edison, how does it feel to have failed 1,384 times? he quickly answered, i never failed once. creating the electric light was a 1385-step process. that is how we need to look at the process to get going. the children the of the world are my heroes, and they are doing that. >> thank you. i trust you are listening not only through your ears and your concrete mind, but through your heart, and you are taking in some of these concrete values. you name date couple of them --

empathy, cooperation, responsibility -- what else did you hear? perseverance was named by roger. responsibility. as we are able to name these and inculcate them through our education and culture, we learn to live together in a just and peaceful society i said to the right -- society. i said to the right, which brings us full around the circle. i think so. >> how to educate? i came into this subject -- this subject found me. i did not find it. i come to you as a filmmaker. the beauty of being a film maker is i do not have to answer any questions, i just have to ask them. there is a panel of people might know how to answer them. for me, the key to --

>> i think you're mike is off. >> it is it? >> i do not have to repeat that, do i? for me, i started with a riding experiment and discovered that 2000 kids were killed or injured in war every day, not to include gang violence and everything else that is going on in the world. what i realized in my short film "anna's playground" i had a tool that could be used. that tool does something very specific. my approach as a filmmaker is through the hearts, not through the head. i think being in an environment which a learning it environment,

is very interesting, -- a learning environment, it is very interesting, because- -- my film is not fact. it is not a documentary. it is absolutely contrary to that. it is fiction. it is the difference between empathy and sympathy. i think that is what i want to bring to the table and how i want to educate with what i am doing -- create empathy. it is easy for us to watch and hear stories about what is going on in all of these different areas, and it is easy to put our head around that, but my hope is to put people's hard around the humanity of children, no matter what the political situation or the context of the situation. it is about creating empathy and connection with those of us who are blessed to live in this country. while we are surrounded by her

violence, we are extremely fortunate to live in a club of america. it is difficult to get past the head and into the heart. everyone in this room is an easy audience because you are all well-versed in it. i think reaching people who are not as well-versed is how i see connecting an audience to how they are effected by children living in violence. and, during my process of -- wely shooting the film shot the film in minneapolis, the largest amount in community in the world outside of mogadishu. i have two quick and it notes that show directly how being in -- anecdotes that show directly

how been in minneapolis, we are connected. in the film there is a rocket propelled grenade prop. my designer was going up the elevator with a somali gentleman and his immediate response was "is that real? he said it looks just like the one i used to shoot people with what i was a boy. that was a very frightening story, and it was amazing to have this man share his story with us. then, it got more personal. after three days of shooting, my translator had not been on set. we had a translator to connect with the local community. as we were filming, he came up on the third day crying, and apologizing to me for not being there. of course, i was upset, because

i am the director and everyone is supposed to revolve around me. i was taught a very quick lesson. he apologized because his 16- year-old nephew had been recruited and taken from the minneapolis neighborhood along youths other somalian and brought to mogadishu to fight in the civil war. he was dead a week later. i think most of those kids are now dead, and this is right here, in middle america, where we are being effected not just by the violence in the inner cities, but by every kid living in violence around the world. so, my hope is to educate through the heart with empathy, rather than statistics and, i guess, through love, through the

heart. that is really what my approaches. >> thank you. has you share that, i'm mindful for those of you the war at the panel today, so many of the researchers this morning mention education as a key to a just and sustainable peace. so, to live. therese kuoh-moukoury? >> [speaking french] >> excuse me, will you translate for us?

>> when i listen to what everyone is saying, i am a little bit confused because my personal experience seems to be a little bit different. [speaking french] >> i can only link my experience to my country. [speaking french] >> as far as the other countries are concerned, i have to read. i rely on what i see in documentary's. -- document carries.

-- document carries. [speaking french] >> coming back to cameroon -- i must say cameroon has gone through a number of conflicts. even now, i cannot say that cameroon is not at war at the moment. [speaking french] >> in 1945, we have the for social upheaval.

it was almost a civil war. [speaking french] >> it was asking for rights. >> [speaking french] >> they were fixing the colonial army, but they had branches and crops, and when they started running away, the military started shooting at them. [speaking french] >> women and children, then, run to the only refuge there could

be, the churches. what happened was when they went into the church they were faced with another gun. this time, it was from the priests themselves. >> [speaking french] >> from that moment, i became convinced that war is not a good thing. >> [speaking french] >> 10 years after, there was much more organized rebellion, much more organized terrorism, if you will. >> [speaking french]

>> sari. -- safari. -- sorry. these are things that touch me, also. ok. she was not in cameroon then. she was in france. she met a student, a woman going to france to study, and she met a young man who said i was witness to my father's head exposed in public places, if you will.

>> [speaking french] >> from that moment, again, i've become much more convinced that children must be agitated against war. -- agitated against war. -- agitated against war. -- educated against war. >> [speaking french] >> what is happening now is all women organizations in cameroon have taken the responsibility of educating children and and how luring them against war. >> [speaking french] >> specifically my organization.

>> [speaking french] that i write,ime i have the responsibility to write against war to end to as much as possible. -- against war, and do as much as possible. >> [speaking french]

>> so, in one of my novels, that the court and better just talked about, [speaking french] >> [speaking french] >> there is a character. >> [speaking french] >> zimba could not get married. >> [speaking french] >> because her fiance was killed during the war. >> [speaking french]

>> in another piece of my writing and talking about one character who went to war but came back, with half a foot. >> [speaking french] >> these are things that when you are a child, you see someone with half a foot, have a hand, these are images that impact a child. he never go away from those memories. you live with those memory -- you never go away from those memories. you live with those memories. >> [speaking french] >> so that is my contribution, together- let's work

for peace. >> thank you. i'm mindful, as you share, therese kuoh-moukoury, something betty, the mother of peace education has said. she says, aligned with what i feel in my heart, "the general purpose of peace education is to promote the development of authentic planetary consciousness that will enable us to function as global citizens and to transform the present human condition by changing social structures and the patterns of thought that have created it. this transformational imperative must be at the center of peace education." i'm mindful of that through your writing. thank you. gilbert?

>> it seems trouble follows you almost everywhere. for 60 years i have said i'm not going to talk about all of these problems. today, i am forced to do it. it started in new york. i was invited to talk to a class. when i arrived, it was a surprise. they said talk about your life as a child, so i did. >> we are grateful. >> in 1955, the upc movement, the first organized movement in cameroon was formed.

for those who had connections outside, they were obliged to flee outside of the country. those who could not had to take to what is called [speaking french] >> if you are called this in cameroon, if you are played, if you will. after having organized from 1945 until 1955, organizing the people ideologically and preparing them for the fact that colonization is not good. suddenly, they are forced to go into hiding. at that moment the french army decided to eradicate opposition.

from 1956 until 1957, and from 1957, it was my area. the tactic was clear. the french army had the duty to totally eradicate what was then considered communist. my village, my kingdom, was that the center of the upc moment. everyone asked simply what every human being wanted it, my piece of land is my piece of land. it was not generalize. it was the some of the previous ones who were sent to france to have this education, but the vast majority of us were to work

our farms that for occupied. war was general. unfortunately, for me, my father was one of the many changes. the king does not take part the king does not choose side -- the king does not choose sides. there is no neutrality in war. [unintelligible] the french prime minister to attend a middle -- a metal on my father -- pinned a medal on my father. i cannot forget that night. as my father was walking back home, he said i have eaten, let other people eat.

that night, the liberation soldiers came and killed my father on the grounds that he expected the metal he was on the side of the army. the french army -- award generalize. we had bombing all around. the kingdom was totally destroyed. that night, when i went and saw the corpse of my father, he was cut into pieces. when i saw him -- when i saw him, -- the answer is don't cry, but we cry. we buried my father. we had to go somewhere.

you had to flee. i was asked to go to one of the [unintelligible] i saw all of these men and women dressed in khaki. they were singing songs, and i heard the song the other day. when i've looked at it, i say so, we are really at war. if i had gone to the side of the so-called army, i would have been killed. i decided to be part of [unintelligible] we fought. that was not -- that was just for a short time. independence came in the 1960's. since we had to independence, for most of us, war was not part of our history.

i will go quickly. i am not the only one. we are so many of us. our role was to carry songs or messages. [unintelligible] we were finally given independence in 1960. i understood the value of education. i have the best education. it was a challenge to me -- for me. some of my people dropped out but they never had that. [unintelligible] in know, when you see your father -- you know, when you see your father, it does not leave

you. you live with it. all of my years, angry wars. i learned to let my game ergo. -- my anchor go. my first books, i do not like them. i do not want to quote them. i learned to put all of my anger in the first writing, where no one is living. then i started teaching at the university, teaching french literature. i see all of these who do not know what was going on. no one wanted to talk about it. one day i abandoned my job and

decided to educate the low income people in the village, and destined to be proud of themselves, and express their own opinions. then, educate people on the issue of environmental -- i thought i was doing something. all that i was saying was teaching local people to stand up to all for their rights. it was against the will of the government. i was fought out of the country and today i am in exile, but today, i am proud of it. i learned from it, they are actors, there are writers, and i published a volume. what am i doing here?

we talked about before, of other places, and i think the united states for giving me the opportunity to be here, but we know we can make a difference. although i am here, they still feel me over there. agitation puts knowledge in your pocket. you -- education + knowledge in your pocket. -- pellets knowledge in your pocket. -- puts knowledge in your pocket. [unintelligible] you come to my class to tell, to create your own story. let us not silence the stories. let us bring people to talk. when you talk, you are cured, and you make your other people. thank you.

-- mike your other people. thank you. [applause] >> it is very good to be here every time. i now live back in liberia. every time i come back i forget that america gets very cold, so i am walking around without a winter jacket. people must have thought i was a crazy man. in life, there are so many things that we forget. i remember being in liberia getting malaria used to be like the flu, you've got every year. the thing was something like malaria is when you are sick, you forget what it is like to be well. when you are well, you forget what it is like to be sick. there are so many things in our lives that we forget about. the issue of war, and being in the middle of a war is

something that remains forever burned in your memory. before the liberian civil war, we never thought we would experience war, bloodshed, or human suffering. he then watching it on the television screen, the most graphic war movie really does not put you into what it is to be in the middle of a war. that is how extreme it is. obviously, the movie cannot convey that sense of fear that you fill in the middle of the war, the smells that you experience -- the smells of death and disaster, or just extreme human suffering. having that experience as a child, being 9 years old, and been thrown in the middle of a war, for me, it really tore my

life apart. in effect, for children in the middle of a war, it hit -- in fact, for children in the middle of a war, it is almost as if you are torn between two worlds, trying to hold on to the innocence of being a child, in joining what comes with that and not having to worry about finding food or what you are going to eat. i often go back and say that is what did choices of been the child. you're not worried about the light bill or the water, or where food is going to come from. that no since it is taken away, and then all of that -- that innocence is taken away, and then all of the sudden you go into a war situation where all of the things children are not supposed to be concerned about, you are worried about. in my life, at 10-years-old, i

moved from being an adult -- from being a child to end adult. my first organization started when i was 14. people say they -- that i did incredible things. our situations were different. i have lost that childhood. thousands of children essentially lose their childhood. the difficulty of it is that it is something that cannot ever be replaced. there are so many things that can be replaced, but the idea of losing the childhood cannot be replaced. imagine for a moment, and i was not used as a child soldier, but imagine for a moment -- ago i was not used, my life was extreme. the situation i went through was extreme. just imagine for a moment the

child who is forced to fight, and the child who is forced to kill. these are young children who are forced from their families, or in some cases these are young children who decided to enter the war because they felt either it was a way to provide for themselves, or to fight, or take revenge, for something happen to them. that journey into being a child soldier and fighting, and imagine for a moment the youngest person who fought in the liberian -- liberian civil war was 6 years old. in fact, rival armies in liberia, that was their strongest fighting force. it essentially, with a child, not like an adult, and i'm sure

adult soldiers who are here -- most adults, i hope all adults, have developed a sense of right and wrong, of life and death. a child has not developed that sense yet. so, what they are capable of doing, and the fierceness of the killings they are able to commit, and the atrocities they are able to commit is far more vicious than adults soldiers. in lubbock area, -- in liberia, when they saw adult rebels, they would be happy to go to them, but when you saw a child rubble, you would freak out. you could never tell what passed them off, and they could be passed off easily. it is probably one of the most difficult things in the world. it is extremely, extremely

difficult in my work of trying to go through and work with these young people -- nothing proves harder. i want to wrap up, but unfortunately we have this situation where there are so many countries, because you guys, and i remember when i first came to the u.s. in 1998 and i went to high school. i was coming from africa and an african country, and i went to a school in delaware. my friends in high school were like a "diskette must have been fighting -- in this guide must -- this guy must have been fighting a lying and swinging in the trees. i am a skinny guy. in five weight at a lion, i am going to pass out.

so many people were simply not aware -- i if i wink at a lion, i am going to pass out. some people were simply not aware. people want to know how to get involved. what i have seen, all the time that i have been here and in all of my work is that change in the world is no longer about governance. it is not above the u.n.. it is not the big, international organizations. i truly believe the change in the world will come when we, as individuals, especially young people because everywhere in the world they make up the majority of the population -- if we, as young people stood up and we fought, and not with guns, but we fought intellectually and

with our determination and strength, the world would slip around. unimagined as tomorrow morning every young person everywhere -- imagine if tomorrow morning every young person everywhere in the world stood up and said no to child soldiers, and no to war. do you know what would happen? >> i bet all of the money that i have, and it is not a lot of money, but i bet you the day after the world would be a different and better place. we can do it, we just have to get up, stand up, and find something, anything to do to make the world did better place. see why. -- thank you. >> thank you, kimmie. >> manish, before you share your

story, i have spoken to so many of the of over the past days and many of you in the audience who are here with a story, and to have been telling your stories to drop the week. it is so powerful. this is one of those ways that combines healing and education, and actually being together in ways than help us create something that is very different. thank you, kimmie. manish? >> thank you. i would also like to bring three scenarios that i confront. every country in south asia is grappling with some kind of conflict. the three scenarios are upbeat -- are a bit pessimistic, but later on i will talk about optimistic hope as well. the first scenario is about stealing the life of children.

this encounter happened to me in afghanistan. i was visiting an orphanage. there was a child who had not been able to really make friends with other children. he was kind of trouble. the person who was managing the orphanage was in a dilemma on how to settle the issue because he always beats the other children. he has this hatred language. i then ask the manager where he came from, and he gave me the scenario of telling me that in afghanistan and pakistan there are radical schools where children are prepared to be suicide bombers, and this child was rescued from their.

this is a scenario of stealing of a life of a person. this is the first scenario. the second incident that happened to me was while i was working with the disabled some students -- children, [unintelligible] imagine 70% of these people. people't dumping 19,000 -- we are dumping 19,000 people, giving them $50 a month for their living and everything. this particular incident happened to me when i was interviewing one of the children.

i was interviewing this guy who adjust been discharged. i asked him what he was going to do now. he answered me, well, i do not have any future because if i go back to my society, no one will except me because i am the cause of the death of my parents, the death of my family members, and the death of my neighbors. so, this is a story of stealing the hope from chosen -- from children. we are still in the future. this is a story where children are not seen the future. the third story happened to me in sri lanka. we have a university there. this story happened to me right on the day when the head of ltt

was found dead. there was a big fanfare. food was being distributed. at the same time, and the other , i was at the airport waiting for a taxi. unfortunately, i was sitting with a couple and a child who were just flying out of india. [unintelligible] for some reason, i was talking to this child because he was

sitting in my lap, and i was asking her a question. why are you happy today? the answer struck me. "we killed." here, you are still in the hope of a child. where does the reconciliation happen? we are teaching about us and them. these are a few different stories with different scenarios, but a very pessimistic picture about how we are going to deal with these things. in one story, we are talking about still in the life of a child because i do not know what would be the future of this child who was prepared to be a suicide bomber, then we're talking about a child to cannot

go back to their society, and the third story is a child who does not really know about anything but has a bias about other people. for me, i think the only solution is education. in the morning and know we talked about education, but there is also a problem with agitation. i can cite two examples. one example is from afghanistan. i was doing research on looking at the educational patterns in afghanistan. i came to know that right after september 11, in 2002, in this up wasted -- unicef wasted money on a text book. there was a blunder that cause

them to throw it out. education is seen as a public good, and every country wants to instill education. as happened in afghanistan unicef decided to -- this happened in afghanistan. unicef decided to reprint all of the textbooks. in the textbooks, there was languages which were projected for the soviets. in mathematics, they have pictures of guns and bombs that they use to tout the numbers. these kind of textbook -- out the numbers. these kind of text books are used. sometimes, education is always

very political language. there is a problem with agitation as well. a funny story happened to me when i was recently on a trip where they were trying to change the text of a history book. a panelist was talking this morning about how if there were powerful within the world would be peaceful. i do not see that in bangladesh. in fact, in south asia we have a lot of powerful women. they were changing the text book and i was asking some of the people, and they said this happens every year. it happens when another lady comes as she tries to protect the history based on her family contributions in making the state. sometimes, education is also a

problem. my focus is on peace education, the real school where we can bring some changes, and instill some hope to this kind of scenario. i would like to use a statement -- "since war begins in the minds of the men, it is in the minds of the men that the defense of peace must be constructed. all i think that is the hope. >> thank you, manish. thank you, everyone, for sharing your stories. i am aware of the time. i would like to take it one more step before we open it up for just a few questions to the panel. kimmie, you brought up the good point about rehabilitation and how difficult that is. how do we educate the children who have experience been child

soldiers in order to empower them to engage positively? i do not want to stop with that question, mainly because of the time. i'm going to lay that out to inspect -- contextualism, knowing that is such a serious problem. knowing that all of -- no in the work that all of you are doing on the panel -- the global campaign, so many good things happening, tell us, from your perspective, in the midst of this all systems break down, all over the planet, where is the all systems breakthrough? what is working? what is it that if we were to focus on more of that in this emerging world view of cooperation, and really working together as so many of you have commented on, that we could indeed not just to rehabilitate

and in power, but actually proactively agitate for peace and entire generation? talk to us about that. >> manish said something that is so true in so many countries. first of all, the simple thing is listening to the people themselves. and one they say something that is happening in so many post- war countries, the big agencies are wasting a hell of a lot of money doing crazy things. i make peace activist, but i want to find someone and not them on the head. in the case of liberia, there are young people that have fought from 1990. the war formally ended in 2004. these child soldiers -- they were taking in millions of dollars in funds. these guys collected the child

soldiers and they said they had a fund for rehabilitation, reintegration, it's cetera -- it's set at -- etc.. they went out and started giving each of the child store it -- soldiers $150 until they depleted the fund. if you're a child soldier and you are and $150, they went out and they bought sneakers, jeans, and new cd players, but someone had to write a report saying that the process was complete. obviously, it was not. they came back again in 2004 took the child soldiers, and put them in a room. this is a true story the five- day rehabilitation process was to essentially having them watch war movies. that is what experts said was

the solution. it does not make sense, but these are the guys coming from princeton and harvard. nothing against princeton and harvard. if people listen and spend more time listening to the people themselves, to the child soldiers -- often we make the mistake, especially the large aid agencies, of assuming we know what is right and what the people need. if we actually went there and we went with the perspective that we know absolutely nothing and listen, we would do so much more, and so much better. that is the premise of my work at use action. we listen to the people before we develop the programs. >> i will go to the people, lived to the -- live with the people, listen to the people,

learn from what they are doing. i go to the people. i live their life. i let them merit their stories -- narrate their stories. [unintelligible] my word is different from someone. if i go and listen, we think education is simply going to sit in a classroom, but knowledge can be given and all of us here can do it if we live with the people, listen to their story. if there is a problem, we did not say there is a problem, let them say this is the problem, then simply ask them all to solve their problem. at that moment it is not

monetary, it is bringing in ideas. as i say, i am doing it, and i think it is the best way to educate people. >> thank you. roger, i know you want to say something also, then we will open up for a couple of questions. >> i went to a school in south africa. these children had two kinds of war. they were left over from the apartheid government where nelson mandela eventually became president during that uprising, but they are also undergoing an incredible war of time -- crime. i visited with principal daniels, and the first thing principal daniels did when he went to the school and his first day -- blowholes started coming to the classroom --: all started coming to the question.

he had no idea is what was going on. his first lesson was to teach the children how to hide on the floor. secondly, he noticed there were over 400 bullet holes in the school. this is 600 elementary kids. he discovered that the bullet holes were from six rival gangs that had been fighting each other for over 40 years, and they fought for the property of the school for their territory because they could use these children for drugs and prostitution. the oldest was 10 or 11 years old. the second thing mr. daniels did was patch up 400 bullet holes in the school, and then being courageous as he was, he went out to meet the games. he asked why they were shooting through the school. he said the unemployment rate

is 70%. we robbed and we still, or we starve to death. -- steel, or we starve to death. we do not get any choice. principal daniels thought for a minute and he said look out the front of the school. there are several acres that are lying dormant. plant a farm. grow crops. solemn on a roadside stand. this sounds preposterous, but they did. -- sell them on a roadside stand. this sign -- this sounds preposterous, but they did. it is called the peace garden. the city provided them with water. they have enough money selling vegetables to support every member of all six games and their families. there has not been a shot fired

in the elementary school since 2004. now, the value that comes out of this is always respect the dignity of your enemies. most politicians nowadays do not do this, but principal daniels had an enemy -- six games putting a bullet holes through the windows of the children. he respected their dignity, maintained their dignity, worked with them, and it ended up on national television in south africa because here was someone who reduced the crime rate, solve the problem, created peace, maintain the dignity of everyone, and was able to continue with the education of the children. education is very important in solving the problems peacefully it like that. is the only way we are going to do it. >> -- is the only way we are going to do it. >> thank you.

in all honesty, we're only going to have time for two or three questions. no pushing and shoving. it is a peace summit. two or three questions. yes, of course. step up. if you have a comment or question, please share your name. >> i am from montessori high school. i was just wondering your opinion on how the project children and being in wars. during my freshman year i did studies on sierra leone and liberia and the children, and in my opinion they blind us as children in education about what happens in other countries because i think, in my opinion, countries think they are better than other countries and do not

believe their students and education system should know about these problems. if we know about them, we can take the small steps to make bigger steps, like most of your organizations that started with little steps and made a big impact. i was wondering on why you think they do that to blind other countries and students and their education systems on things of this matter. they think it is small, but they are not. there are really huge. >> that is such a good question. you know, and i do not like to be seen as someone who is a conspiracy theorist, but i like to believe that if, again, something as simple as the millennium development goals, the plan for ending extreme poverty, there is a survey that

showed less than 1% of americans knew about this, and that is something that is supposed to end human suffering. around the world, it seems to me that if every young person was informed not only about the issues, but about the real possibilities for change, that it is not a utopian dream but it is possible. i will give you one simple example -- education. . .

as you saw in the film, those children were trying to play even though there are gunshots. but i think humanity, the humanity is in all of us even under the worst situation, especially for children. and we just have to find that and we ju have to support it. >> i think it has to do with how the message is delivered as well. i think it's so easy, especially in this country we

like to politicize things, we like to pick right and wrong, red and white, black and blue. and it's so easily that message can so easily become that. it sells better when it's the tragic story. if it bleeds, it leads. and we need to make sure that the message that we send does have hope. i mean, if you look at my film, one of the things that i try to do, it's a tragic story but here are some people doing things to make it better. i think it's important that you can make that connection because we don't live in -- our hearts don't want to live in tragedy. they want to live in hope. i think it's important that we make that connection so that, one, we don't politicize it. and, two, we provide hope. >> i think one of the things i'd like to highlight is apart, i think media also plays an

important role in this. and especially when i come to america i do not like the media here. i was lecturing once in montreal in a -- to a bunch of people who were going to be journalist. and i challenged them how much media is used in terms of giving education. if you go to napal everybody has a radio and what they listen to is bbc. they can tell the name of the prime minister of canada if you ask the people. so how media plays is also a kind of big difference in terms of educating. >> thank you. and thank you for the question. >> i stand before you very humbly and pitfully as a human being. >> your name, please. >> i am pc craig herbing, u.s. marine, retired. i want to thank all the distinguished panelists, the

monitor, moderator, excuse me. for all that they're doing here. points of interest for myself. on the knowledge of spiritual connection through the children and the healing of the soul through education. i just got done with a full cat artism after throying just one of the pomes of the vietnam children project. my question. to each of the panelists and to the moderator. the native american sacred ways, which i'm very honored to have my brothers here frot plat head indian reservation through soldiers heart organization, dr. thich, the native american sacred ways and the first peoples of this country i see no where represented here in panel discussions.

i am very, very honored to have sharing from my sister, if i may call her that with great honor, for the issues she brought up, the very issues of it's now time for the women to step up and take their rightful place at the head of their nations, to educate the children. the sacred ways of indiginous people of this country, the sacred warriors society of peace. the sacred sun dance, the sacred ghost dance, sadly enough, which is still illegal in this country, a country of freedom. i have my doubts. the sacred sweat lodge, the sacred talking circle that my brother bear held here at this

gathering. the phenomenal works that dr. thich and soldier's heart organization does dealing with combat veterans and their ptsd not post -- not ptsd but post- soul, tear soul disorder in his book, war in the soul, long with many other books such as dream healing or the works of a phenomenal lady in her book titled sacred message down under. >> is it a question you would like to pose? >> yes, there is. >> thank you. >> there's one more book i would like to share with and that's somewhat slantted titled on killing by lieutenant colonel grossman. we listen but why can't we list ton the children? the people who really get it.

the little grandmothers and grand fathers. ok? so to restate the question, how can we in this country best do to quote soldiers heart message caring means sharing the burden? why aren't there -- >> thank you. and i'm going to ask that the panel hold that question and ask if you please to step up to the mike and ask your question, and then we'll get the final comments from the panel. >> my name is she'lla i'm a master student here. my question is what has been your biggest obstacle in conveying these messages? and what have you come across as maybe if it's ignorance or just lack of knowledge in regards to child soldiers? what has been your biggest issues in conveying this

information? thank you. >> let me start by saying that we have to start doing something. i mean, we've already been doing things. maybe we don't know what is happening. when i watch the poem on the painting of the children, i have chairs all around because it's the story of these kids bombing on women. i saw my mothers and uncles been bombed and so on. so we have to connect with one another. and we hope that in the center we have relief but we don't listen to one another. there should be a list so that when we finish at the end, it's not just finished like this. we have to keep on.

because you can -- let me just quickly say i wanted to take children with my children. i wanted to take them to africa to see their relatives. but were opposed by the administration. we keep on working in order to do that. with my colleagues here, you connect and then you try. and person to person. you can be able to change your personal life. don't let the structure which are there prevent you from doing. i'm so happy because almost every summer i have students going back and living with my people. guess what, they come back, they're so happy and so honored and changed. is so what are the obstacles? talking about child soldiers and so on. the first obstacle is that it's so always easy when you've been at the center of all these

things. there's some shame on all those things. so we just have to encourage one another. we have one student in albany looking at me and saying, oh, so you were a child soldier? did they kill you? did you smoke we'd? so all these questions may prevent you from talking but we have to learn how to connect. let me just finish. you cannot change the world after we have gathered here and we don't know one another. do you know who is sitting next to you? look at the person, take the note so that we have it later on. so that the dialogue continues after we have finished here. >> thank you. what beautiful wrapup. and i see the doctor nodding her head in the back. and i invite all of you as we wrap this up and share that there are many young heroes of peace and there are many heroes of peace who understand that if

we want a new future, we need a new story. turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself. but first, please, help me thank the panelists. >> coming up today, the white house ceremony for this year's kennedy center honoraries. then we talk to the pollster frank lunts. and later a debate about literature and the society with tony blair and author christopher hitchance. on tomorrow's washington journal, roger hicky of the campaign for america's future on the president's relationship with political progressives. reporter lynn stanten on the fcc's net neutrality rules for

the internet. and brian stan of higher heroes u.s.a. on job prospects for returning veterans. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> listen to historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. today, the constitutionality of displaying christmas decorations on town property. >> with the possible exception of the cross, the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious symbols in this country and one of the most powerful christian symbols in this country. >> listen to the argument on c-span radio. nation wide and on line at c-span radio.org. >> this month, the president and michelle obama welcome the 2010 kennedy center honorees to the white house. each year the center awards five performers and artists for their contribution to american

culture. this year's are oprah winfrey, songwriter and musician paul mccartney, merl hagrd, jerry herman, and bill t jones. this is half an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[background conversations]

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ [applause]

♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. michelle obama. [applause] ♪ ♪

>> thank you. well, what a good-looking crowd. we do what we can. huh? happy holidays, everybody. and on behalf of michelle and myself, i want to welcome all of you to the white house. and i want to start by giving

special thanks to speaker nancy pelosi and all the members of congress who are here. nobody has done more for our country over the last couple years. [applause] none of this would be possible without some people who have put great effort into this evening. david ruben stine, miking kaiser, the kennedy center trustees, and all the people who have made the kennedy center such a wonderful place for americans of all ages to enjoy the arts. and on that note, i also want to give special thanks to carol 89 kennedy. [applause] and all the other members of the kennedy family who are here tonight. it's wonderful to see them.

finally, i want to recognize the cochairs of the president's committee on the arts and humanities. my good friend george stevens. george and his son michael are the brains behind the kennedy center honors. and i want to thank them all for their great creativity. this is a season of celebration and of giving. and that's why it's my greatest privilege of president to honor the five men and women who have given our nation the extraordinary gift of the arts. the arts have always had the power to challenge and the power to inspire. to help us celebrate in times of joy and find hope in times of trouble. and although the honorees on this stage each possess a staggering amount of talent, the truth is that they aren't being recognized tonight simply because of their careers.

instead, they're being honored for their unique ability to bring us closer together and to capture something larger about who we are. not just as americans, but as human beings. that's what merl hagrd has been doing for more than 40 years. often called the poet of the common man. merllikeds to say that he is living proof that thing ks go wrong in america but also that things can go right. in a day, an age when so many country singers seem to be rambling, gambling outlaws, merl actually is one. [applause] he has his first freight train the age of ten, was locked up so many times as a boy, pulling off as many escapes. later, he mentioned johnny

cash, mecksed he had seen him perform earlier at san quentin earlier. that's funny, cash said, because i don't remember you being in the show. and merl had to explain to the man in black that he hadn't been in the show, he had been in the audience. that performance had inspired merl to start writing songs, and he's written thousands of them since. about three or four hundred keepers, in merl's opinion. 38 of those songs have been number one on the charts including oakie from musscogeie, which he performed for richard nixon right here in this room back in 1973. through it all, his power has always come from the truth he tells about life and love, and everything in between. as he says, the best songs feel like they've always been there. so tonight we honor a man who feels like he has always been

here. [applause] now, growing up in new jersey, jerry herman and his family used to play broadway tunes in the living room. jerry on the piano, his mother on the accordian, and his father playing the sax. he never took a music lesson but always had the ability to play anything he heard by ear. then, when he was 14, jerry went to see the great ethel mermman perform in annie get your gun. in his words, i got a load of that great lady, and was gone. jerry was determined to be a song writer even though he didn't think he could ever make a career out of doing something that was so much fun. but that's what he's done, pening songs for hello dolly

and la cauge afole and drawing audiences out of their world and into his imagination. those earned him a shelf full of tonys. and he's the only one who has had three shows on broadway at the same time. [applause] today that same kid from jersey city is still doing what he loves. as jerry says, i never wanted to do anything but make people hum. so thank you, jerry, for doing just that. [applause] jerry wanted to make people hum. bill wanted to make them open their eyes and make them move. the youngest of 12 children, bill's parents were mige rant workers, poorer than poor who made a living picking fruits

and vegetables up and down the east coast. early on, bill struggled to find his identity in a segregated world where he often felt he didn't belong. then he began to dance. he likes to say that a good dancer has heart, guts, strength, intelligence and personality. he's been blessed with plenty of each. as the cofounder of the bill t. jones arnie zain dance company bill has earned widespread acclaim in the hyper competitive world of modern dance all while battling poverty and homophobia and racism. his unique performances have always been provocative, challenging audiences to confront important issues in a way that is captivating, agitating, and extremely personal. to date he has created over 140 works from subjects on terminal illness to abraham lincoln. one of the most decorated and controversial choreographies during his time.

bill has never compromised his sense of purpose or loost his ability to inspire others. i'm not afraid to stand up, i'm not afraid to be looked at. making my art is a way of saying to people, gay people, hiv positive people, that life is words it. for that, we are forever grateful. [applause] now, there's not a lot that i can tell you about our next honoree that you don't already know. he's become something of a regular here at the white house. we decided we would give him all possible awards this year. so this summer, paul mccartney was here to accept the gershwin prize for popular song. a thrill of a lifetime to hear him sing michelle to michelle.

although apparently paul joked afterwards that he was worried that he might become the first guy ever to become punched out by the president. i will say he was a little emotive during the song. i can't afford another one. you have nothing to worry about, i just recovered from my last tussle on the court. once again i am pleased to honor a man considered to be among the greatest song writers in history. he first picked up a guitar at 14. homework went undone, comics went unread. he would play it in the bath room. it wasn't long before he gravitated toward other young musicians who shared his

passions including a young man named john lennon. but when paul and his band mates played a first set in a hole in the wall club in england, expectations were still low. they thought they would be pretty big in liverpool. that band went on to change the way the world thought about music. their songs were the sound track for an era of immense creativity and change. and when paul continued his musical journey alone after the beatles broke up, he would become one of the few performers indoesn'ted into the rock in roll hall of fame twice. as a beatle and as a solo artist. [applause] now, paul admits that the only possible explanation is super natural. the most important ingredient to making a song work is magic. you've got a melody, words, but on the most successful songs there's a sort of magic glow that just makes the song sort

of roll out. we may not understand it, paul. but for the last five decades you've taken millions of fans on a pretty magical ride. and i should point out that includes a whole new generation. when mail la and sasha were here, we went upstairs and that song penny lane, that's a really neat song. and she started trying to play it on our piano upstairs. so you continue to inspire. all those years since liverpool. thank you. paul mccartney. [applause] and what can i say about our final honoree? michelle and i love oprah winfrey. personally love this woman. and the more you know oprah, the more spectacular you realize her character and her soul are and the more you

appreciate what a wonderful gifted person she is. it's easy to forget sometimes that oprah was once a girl with a funny name in a little town down south. back then, nobody would have ever dreamed that she would become someone who moves an entire nation each and every day. but the signs were there. after two days of kindergarten oprah wrote a note to her teacher, i don't think i belong here because i know a lot of big words. her teacher agreed. and she moved on to the first grade. and while she was working as a reporter in baltimore, oprah was told she was too engaged and too emotional about her stories. so the station put her on a talk show to run out her contract. that worked well. payback.

that plabted the seed for what would become the highest rated talk show in american television history. oprah's gift as a host, producer, as an osca nominated actress has always been her ability to relate to her audience, to laugh with us, to cry with us, to draw us in and connect our most fervonte hopes and deepest fears to her own. the reason we share ourselves with oprah is because she shares herself with us. her childhood abuse, personal battles, as a woman, african american, as someone who is determined to confront most great injustices a in the world and the private struggles of everyday life. she has taught us to find strength in overcoming, to take a stand for ourselves, and what we node is right. and she has shown millions of people around the world, people she probably will never meet, what it means to believe in the dream of your own life.

oprah winfrey. [applause] so, their lives and their stories as are -- -- who is calling? are as diverse as any you can imagine. yet, in their own way each of these honorees help us understand the human experience, to illuminate our past, to help us understand our present, and to give us the courage to face our future. being here with tonight's honorees reflecting on their contributions, i'm reminded of a supreme court opinion by the great justice oliver wendell holmes in a case argued by the

court in 1926, the majority ruled that the state of new york couldn't regulate the price of theater tickets because in the opinion of the majority the theater was not a public necessity. they argued in effect that the experience of attending the theater was superfluous. and this is what justice holmes had to say. too many people, he wrote in his dissent, the -- let me start that over. to many people, the superfluous -- it's this lip. it's hard to say. you try it when you've had 12 stitches. the superfluous -- [applause] -- thank you. to many people the superfluous is necessary. the theater is necessary. dance is necessary. song is necessary.

the arts are necessary. they are a necessary part of our lives. the men and women here tonight embody that idea. their work has enriched our lives, it's inspired us to greatness, and tonight it is my honor to offer them the appreciation of a grateful nation. thank you very much, all five of you. god bless you. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, at this time, please remain at your seats until the recipients and their guests leave forward. thank you. >> american university's campaign management institute gets under way monday with political consultants and strastjists from both parties. session topics include the general political environment with a republican surveand research consultant. and the upcoming chicago mayor's race with the forme obama campaign pollster. live day-long coverage monday at 9:00 a.m. easternn c-span

2. >> on c-span today, former british prime minister tony blair and christopher hitchens on the role of religion. garrison keeler talks about humor in public life and sandra day oh conner and david suiter discuss life on the high court. "q&a" continues tonight and tomorrow with interviews from london. tonight, the labor party shadow minister of public health on plans for budget cuts as well as her experiences as a minority in public. comparing the british and american forms of government as we talk about our guests about elections, the impact of money in races, the power of prime minister, taxes, social issues, and the cost of living. "q&a" tonight and tomorrow night >> on washington journal, we talk to pollster frank lunts about the mood of the country and public opinion about the economy and politicians.

this is 45 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: frank luntz joines us, republican pollster. guest: i do these focus groups on air for fox. i present to both political parties, but i come from a republican background. however you want to label me, it is christmas, i have no complaints. host: is the word doctors a recent effort of yours? guest: yes. obviously i have not retired. the word doctors' name is about to change.

as of the first of january, i have expanded. we are now in five different states, localities, and it is going to have a new name by january 1, but i cannot tell you what that is. host: talking to folks about their opinions on where we are going, one talking about america's best days. the results are as follows? -- are as follows -- guest: if you look at it over the last 50 years, this question has been asked since the early 1950's. the numbers today are more negative than they have ever been. this is a very good shopping -- this was a very good shopping

season, which is the good news. at some point, it had to happen. it is a better season based on a better overall number. the american people look at what is happening and they are angry and frustrated even though it is christmas. people are still going to yell and scream. it is a real tragedy. in the end, i think there is another -- i don't think there is another country that we would rather live in. with so many opportunities, you have an ipad and the iphone and the ipod, and you think of technology. all of the opportunities that we are given, a true global society. i have already received a phone calls to wish me happy holidays from 2 people in europe, and they used sky which cost them

nothing. half of americans think that our best days are behind us. my hope is that we can set aside some of this division, that we can treat each other with decency and civility. disagree -- because we do have disagreements, but do so how we are talking right now, and then we can begin to be optimistic and appreciate the things that we have in this country. host: a lot of it is because of messages sent from both sides, so you are a part of it. guest: i try to focus on the positive. i tried to focus not just on disagreement but on alternatives. don't just complain. find something better. if you disagree with the president's health-care plan, you have the responsibility to offer an alternative. you have to explain why

washington is in capable of solving the problem and why it needs to be solved at the local level and that the private -- and at the private sector level. finally, i do these focus groups all across the country, and i am losing control. i have been doing this for 20 years. i tell you, this year, i lost control. i have never lost control of market participants. host: what do you mean? guest: i cannot stop them from yelling at each other. i cannot bring the intensity of the conversation down. i did a session in southern california and i could hear behind me -- you never turn your back on live television, however, no matter what is going on. my participants were yelling so loud behind me, that at one

point, i thought there would be a $5,000 fine from the fcc. i turned my back and i said stop! they still didn't stop. that is how intense it has become. we have to chill out and yell a little bit less. host: this comes at a time with efforts from both sides coming to compromises. guest: yes, and the public did not give them credit for it. i would of thought that the approval rating for congress would have gone up, but when they made the deal on tax cuts and on jobless benefits and on the alternative minimum tax, you would have thought that both sides would of been happy. in reality, both sides were complaining that there was compromise with one another.

" did you determine what went into saying or what you asked folks about the best days behind us or ahead of us? what questions did you ask? guest: there is another chart below that the one to address it. to me, this is one of the greatest tragedies that is happening right now. look at that pie chart on the right. a 58% think their kids are going to have it worse than them. we are, as a country, the most optimistic, the most hopeful, but not anymore. this work was done for a foundation, a study of how americans think about themselves, their responsibilities as citizens, their responsibilities as americans, and the tragedy is we

are losing that fundamental faith, that tomorrow will be better than today. host: what is the foundation? guest: it looks at immigration issues. it looks at relationships between citizens and their country. he was one of the founders of the heritage foundation. this is one of the great think tank-type organizations that really does focus on why we think the way that they do, and they look for solutions on issues such as immigration and health care. host: if you would like to ask a question -- you can also reach us a couple of other ways. twitter.com.

also, send us an e-mail at c- span.org. guest: you do is give people so many different ways to interact with you. i was doing the show 10 years ago, and none of that existed. this is why we should be so optimistic. you can yell at me by e-mail or twitter. isn't that a good thing? host: this is also the twitter -- from twitter -- guest: i have always explores the positive approach of some of the most fundamental issues. you cannot just take your information from the web. frankly, you cannot take it to us from cable news.

you have to read all sorts of sources. the greatest threat in american society in terms of information is that we get our news to be affirmed rather than in formed. we correct our news based on what we already believe rather than adding new information. it makes it so difficult because even our basic facts which do not agree on. i always read the new york times and the wall street journal because i want to get as many different perspectives as i can. host: lets start with pennsylvania, on the democrats online. good morning. caller: good morning. c-span aired global warming hearing from the energy subcommittee during which it was

asserted that the missions as a threatened to open a hole in the bottom of the food chain. this is a result of intense international research. from what i have seen, particularly from the 2007 lecture on global warming, you were somewhat the leader in the creation of the [unintelligible] i would like to know what you feel about the threat of climate change this time and what we think -- and what you think we should do. guest: " i have done research as recently as last year on this topic. if we can be more energy independent, not dependent on fossil fuels in general, if we can create more homegrown feels, solar, wind, and in particular

nuclear energy, which is safe, secure, and american, the more that we are energy independent, the more successful we will be and more economic strong we will be. i am a proponent of all of this. i think this battle on climate change is unproductive it. what kind of economy and environment we want to have it in the 21st century? all of the work i have done says that the american people want to explore innovative approaches. they don't want to give up what they have. they don't to lose jobs. i am a proponent of nuclear energy because that sells so many of these issues. thank you for the call. host: how do you react aside

from congress? guest: you have to hold people accountable. it was a concern when both democrats and republicans do it. when you have washington making unilateral decisions without the input of everyone involved, i start to get concerned. there has to be a way, which is why congress has to step up and say we can minute, let's take this as a step-by-step approach and allow voters into the process. host: that rouge, on our republican deadline. -- bad and rouge, louisiana, on our republican line. caller: i watch c-span often to listen to different people in the united states. not as much as the people who appear on c-span. my question is where do we and

how do we regain our trust in the maerican people? that includes the government, our local politicians, everyone. who do we believe today? what information today are we getting that is truthful > ? there is always someone who has an agenda. we have to guess what their agenda is. the one thing i think is a tragic is these two, three, four party system is available -- they get control of our money, control of the united states, control us, the american people, and by getting total control of

the hour monday, they will control the world. guest: i'd think the result of the election of 2010 was a rejection of people taking control of your money and your decisions. there were so many surprises on election night. democrat incumbents were defeated. eight months ago, they were regarded as safe democrats, and then they lost. two points on this. and i have worked in italy and israel, to countries that have had significant political party participation. more like 10 or 12 parties. it is very problematic, that you don't have a stable government, impossible to create coalitions, and the government constantly fall.

in reality, you are not supposed to trust any one source. that is why it is so important that you read the editorial pages of multiple newspapers to collect more information and watching shows like c-span. juan williams comes on after me, and we have a very different points of view. you want to hear both of us. then you can come to the decision of what side you support. ipad. host: in defining the american dream? guest: yes. when you are asked who do you trust, it used to be about freedom. now it is about economic security. one segment of society chooses home ownership. only one.

that is the hispanic community. there was a great advertisement from a company i have worked with that promoted that idea of home ownership. this young woman comes into the living room, she is in tears. she is leaving home, so her mother is crying, she is crying. she goes down the stairs into the streets, across the street, up the stairs. casa.ys mi i am jewish. living across the street from my mother is the american nightmare. host: our next call is from michigan, on our independent blind. caller: good morning. you have been a long time supporter of the republican agenda, you and